Three's Company was doing well at the time. That spinoff was a way of getting rid of them because we know that the Ropers didn't generate that many laughs. I guess we will never know why they didn't want the Ropers on the show anymore. Believe me the producers knew that the show would fail and didn't care because they wanted to replace them anyway. They probably felt that a lanflord who was not married would work better than a married couple which is why they never gave Mr. Furley a wife. Does this make sense to anyone?

No, it doesn't. Creating a spinoff not only takes time, money and support from the network, but if a show you produce fails, it hurts your reputation and closes doors. I can't imagine the producers used a spinoff as a vehicle to get rid of the Ropers knowing the show would fail when they could have, possibily, just fired them. I believe they got a little greddy and thought they could pull it off since the Ropers were popular characters.

Once Don Knotts arrived, they realized they had a hot commodity and perfered his character over the Ropers. Perhaps they felt one landlord change was enough.

JamesC

Originally posted by JamesC
No, it doesn't. Creating a spinoff not only takes time, money and support from the network, but if a show you produce fails, it hurts your reputation and closes doors. I can't imagine the producers used a spinoff as a vehicle to get rid of the Ropers knowing the show would fail when they could have, possibily, just fired them. I believe they got a little greddy and thought they could pull it off since the Ropers were popular characters.

Once Don Knotts arrived, they realized they had a hot commodity and perfered his character over the Ropers. Perhaps they felt one landlord change was enough.

JamesC



But the spinoff still confuses me because th Ropers had nothing to do with the Show's success. THe show would had succeded if it was aired RIGHT AFTER Three';s company on Tuesday night.

i think they just wanted to copy the British people again

The Ropers were an important part of TC. Yes, it could've succeded without them since they were only supporting characters. But they were popular, and, IMO, funny. ABC probably wanted to expand on TC's popularity by taking some of the characters and making a show about them. If the Ropers didn't generate any laughs, then why did the audience laugh at them during their scenes?

I agree with JamesC. If they wanted to get rid of Audra Lindley and Norman Fell, they could've just fired them. Mr. Furley and the Ropers had the same effect on the show, as you can see with the ratings. It made sense to not bring back the Ropers - after all, paying one person to do what two people had done before is cheaper.

And the show wasn't a complete failure. It made it into the top 10 in it's first season. It had no chance of surviving in the time slot it had in it's second season.

I think the failure of "The Ropers" has something to do with the Communists. :crazy:

Originally posted by Sean Snow
The Ropers were an important part of TC. Yes, it could've succeded without them since they were only supporting characters. But they were popular, and, IMO, funny. ABC probably wanted to expand on TC's popularity by taking some of the characters and making a show about them. If the Ropers didn't generate any laughs, then why did the audience laugh at them during their scenes?

I agree with JamesC. If they wanted to get rid of Audra Lindley and Norman Fell, they could've just fired them. Mr. Furley and the Ropers had the same effect on the show, as you can see with the ratings. It made sense to not bring back the Ropers - after all, paying one person to do what two people had done before is cheaper.

And the show wasn't a complete failure. It made it into the top 10 in it's first season. It had no chance of surviving in the time slot it had in it's second season.


Keeping the Ropers on Tuesday night and putting it in the 9;30pm time slot would have keep it on the air as long as Three's Company.

Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you?
He breaks the fourth wall in a sense.

Originally posted by Janice
Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you?
He breaks the fourth wall in a sense. I always thought that was funny. They left an opening for the Ropers to return to the show if their series had lasted one year or less. Because it lasted a little over a year, they weren't asked back. I think they would have returned anyway,but by that time audiences had accepted Mr. Furley as the new landlord and there wasn't any room for two landlords.

Originally posted by Janice
Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you?
He breaks the fourth wall in a sense.


That is what I missed the most when the Ropers left.

Originally posted by Sitcom Analyzer
Keeping the Ropers on Tuesday night and putting it in the 9;30pm time slot would have keep it on the air as long as Three's Company.

i also think they shoulda kept it after Threes Company. I mean, duh. common sense??!?!

I hated it when The ropers left. Helen Roper (Audra Lindley) absolutely cracks me up! Especially in the episode "Jack's Navy Pal"

Quote: Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you?
He breaks the fourth wall in a sense.



I loved that...I think it was breaking character and sharing a laugh with the TV viewing audience....Letting us all in on the gag...And letting us feel part of the show...I always got a kick out of it!!

Originally posted by Sitcom Analyzer
Three's Company was doing well at the time. That spinoff was a way of getting rid of them because we know that the Ropers didn't generate that many laughs. I guess we will never know why they didn't want the Ropers on the show anymore. Believe me the producers knew that the show would fail and didn't care because they wanted to replace them anyway. They probably felt that a lanflord who was not married would work better than a married couple which is why they never gave Mr. Furley a wife. Does this make sense to anyone?

Your analogies are soooooooo stupid.

In the "behind the camera" movie, it did seem like they screwed everyone on that show. I think they just pushed it too far with their spin offs. I think it would have lasted another 5, maybe 10 years more if they would've kept the same gang and eventually reunited Chrissy. Could you imagine what their lives would've been like if they had, our lives for that matter. We would've been laughing even longer. Hopefully someone on that set learned that money isn't everything. I'm not referring to Suzanne, but the producers. I felt bad for Suzanne when they showed her crying about just being on the phone for her final episode, i really think at that point she wanted to turn back time and make a mends. It's amazing how one person can change everything for the people around her. I really wonder what it would've been if none of that would have happened.

I am positive that the Ropers would of came back if any1 but Don Knotts took over. Knotts was a well known Actor and he did a great job. I think if they didnt bring in an Actor w/ Knotts talent they would of had the Ropers buy the building back. Knotts probably made Fell salary and they didnt have to pay Lindley so they saved on $. I think that the Fell and Lindley were a reason TC were a big hit and they defintly should of had more Cameo's.